Back
MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, N. MALA
All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva Sangam rep. by its General Secretary, B. S. R. Muthukumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondents pertaining to Rules 2(c), 7(b) (including Annexure II Group B Category XXXIV and Annexure VII Group B Category III) and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020 issued in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.114, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, dated 3.9.2020 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from appointing or selecting Archakas and other Agama related personnel in temples in contravention of the agamas, as held by the Supreme Court in the decision in Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam versus State of Tamil Nadu and another, AIR 2016 SC 209.)
Common Order:
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, CJ.
In the batch of writ petitions, a challenge is made to Rules 2(c), 7(b) [including Annexure II Group B Category XXXIV and Annexure VII Group B Category III] and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020 [for brevity, “the Rules of 2020”]. In one writ petition, challenge to Rules 2(g), 11 to 15 a
The appointment of Archakas in temples constructed as per Agamas shall be governed by the Agamas and not by the Rules framed by the State Government.
The appointment of an Archaka is a secular act and hence, the hereditary right cannot be claimed.
Caste-based restrictions in the appointment of priests violate constitutional rights to equality and must align with qualifications, not caste.
Exclusion of other castes from the position of Melsanthi based on heritage does not violate constitutional rights, as it respects longstanding religious practices and customs integral to the temple's....
The judgment clarified that the abolition of hereditary rights under the Act precludes claims to Archakatvam service based solely on lineage without meeting statutory criteria.
The availability of an alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner under Section 69 of the HR and CE Act rendered the writ petition not maintainable.
The court established that disputes regarding hereditary claims and functions related to temple duties should be resolved in civil court rather than through writ jurisdiction, emphasizing the secular....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
